It looks like people are seeing this in terms of black and white, and it's not that simple.
It is possible to make fully accessible websites that don't use JavaScript at all, and if we expect the web to regress back to the way it was back in the 90's, then this is reasonable. Right now though, you will be hard pressed to find any public facing corporate website anywhere that does not use JavaScript at all.
Also, the W3C recommends the use of JavaScript at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-practices/#kbd_focus
In order to make sure that complex ARIA widgets are keyboard accessible and that they provide the correct feedback for screen reader users. If this is not done, and people just stick ARIA attributes within static web pages, this will not work accessibly.
Plus, as was just announced:
"W3C WAI announces the publication of Role Attribute 1.0 as a W3C Proposed Recommendation on 13 December, at:"
http://www.w3.org/TR/role-attribute/
If ARIA roles are the proposed standard for the future, which I think is an excellent idea for future accessibility, that means that all of the supporting attributes have to be accepted as well, such as aria-selected, aria-checked, aria-pressed, aria-activedescendant, and so on, all of which have to be controlled using JavaScript.
So, you can certainly make corporate web pages that are fully accessible without the use of JavaScript, but you can also make fully accessible web pages with the use of JavaScript as well, which is always preferable from the start.
----- Original Message -----
From: Harry Loots
To: Steve Faulkner
Cc: David Woolley ; Steve Green ; Karen Lewellen ; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 2:05 AM
Subject: Re: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?
Steve Green wrote:
If Bell declare JavaScript to be part of their technology baseline, then the website does not need to work without JavaScript enabled. However, all the JavaScript features must be implemented in an accessible manner.
This can be true, only if this solution was developed for sole use by a company, using the solution in-house, who are also using browsers, and/or AT that fully understand JavaScript, and all the functionality so provided is accessible to all users.
If however, this is a public website, where everyone has the right of access and can expect to be treated equally, then if a user uses a browser or AT that does not support JavaScript, and is thereby denied access to the functionality offered via the scripting, then the site is not accessible. Ergo, the site is non-compliant.
The clause of "technology baseline" is not an escape clause. It was provided to enable companies building in-house web-based solutions, where they have full control over the browsers and AT to save on additional development costs which may be required to make it accessible to all.
Kind regards
Harry
On 13 December 2012 10:37, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi David,
Whether a user has JavaScript enabled or not is not an accessibility concern.
A site that relies on Javascript for functionality is equally problematic for all users who do not have Javascript enabled.
Whether the Javascript that is used is coded to provide the correct information and interaction behaviours is an accessibility concern.
regards
SteveF
On 13 December 2012 07:52, David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk> wrote:
Steve Green wrote:
3. If Bell declare JavaScript to be part of their technology
+ baseline, then the website does not need to work without JavaScript
+ enabled. However, all the JavaScript features must be implemented
+ in an accessible manner.
There is no indication that this is a closed system. Being able to declare a technology baseline sounds like a good way to avoid the nuisance of WCAG, if it applies to the general internet.
Note that there is an increasing community of users of ARM based systems using the netsurf browser which has no scripting capability at all. That's as well as those who have to block it for security policy reasons.